Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

vortex2.71 sends us to the Seattle Times for an account of two studies published in the prestigious journal Science pointing to the conclusion that almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account. "The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example. These studies... for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development."

"So an effort to fix global warming made things worse? How surprising."

You know....I'm willing to do this anyway...if it will still get us OFF the 'teet' of middle east oil.

If we could just remove our dependency from oil and quit throwing money and worrying about the situation over there because of it....let that place dry up, and let them all do as they please over there. At the very least, it would be worth it in order to quit making peoples and countries wealthy that hate us in the western world.

There are other ways of doing that: nuclear, or the massive oil fields in Alaska. But no politician seems willing to put them all on the table and compare the pros and cons of each.

Nobody's really sure how much oil is in ANWR, but the estimates run from 5.7-16 billion barrels, with a mean of 10.4 billion barrels. To put things in perspective, Saudi Arabia has about 250 billion barrels of reserves, and Iran and Iraq put together have about that much. Kuwait and the UAE each have about 100 billion barrels. Personally, I'm in favor of developing ANWR if we can ensure that a close watch is kept on the oil companies to make sure they don't screw up the environment, but there's no way it will end our dependence on the Middle East.

It is not the 'dependence on middle eastern oil' that is the problem. It is 'installing dictators and propping up theocracies' that is the problem. If America is willing to let countries own their oil fields and do what they please, oil prices would be sky high (loons like Hugo would make sure that happens) and people would've invested money in alternative fuels - money that is going to 'protecting oil interests' now.

So you are assuming that the countries which own oil fields are filled with idiots that when left to their own devices would simply raise prices until no one would buy it from them, ruining themselves in the process. Great basis for any argument!

While I agree with your first conclusion, this one is doubtful. The loonies did try that once during the oil crisis (1973, iirc), and the result was simply a bunch of bankrupcies in the west and decreased sales and eventually lower price. As long as they actually want to maximize their income they cant raise the prices beyond certain levels (and that includes levels that would make alternative fuels more popular).

Gasoline is $8 in England (and much of Europe) which is why they:1. Have great trains, buses, trams & subways, walkways, pedestrian bridges and tunnels and bicyclists.2. Less issue with obesity.3. Neighborhood grocery stores.4. Neighbors they meet regularly at Neighborhood stores.5. About half the energy consumption per person.

There is no causal relationship there, and you know it. The effects you describe are because of England's urban environment and existed long before gas was at $8.

England has 10 times the population density of my home state of Missouri. You have subways because you can easily divide the cost among your population. Gas prices are artificially high in Europe, and artificially low in the US -- in both cases for political reasons. The US middle and lower class depend on gas, and must have it cheap, so it isn't taxed much. The European economy just uses it for shipping goods, which makes it a good way to tax transportation.

While I agree that the urban lifestyle is much better for both the environment and human health, it costs at least 3 times as much to live in that environment here. If you find a solution to suburban sprawl (good luck), then maybe we can have all the benefits you mention in the US, and save the planet in the process.

Only a small part of the European Urban Transportation systems predate the industrial revolution, or more particularly, they advent of the automobile.Subways, trams, and electric trains are all recent adaptations.

1. You have subways because they are an excellent hedge against cold weather. (and perhaps nuclear war according to FSU)2. Uncosting or subsidizing a resource doesn't lower its cost, it merely moves the cost in odd ways, for example, a person riding a bicycle to work in the US will end up paying fo

I didn't mean to imply that public transportation predated gas... just that it predated $8 gas. I think that's safe to say.Other than Ethanol, I'm not aware of gas subsidization in the US. Not taxing something isn't the same as subsidizing it; although I suppose you could argue that it has the same effect.

When you talk about raising the price of gas as a solution to 'consumption and obesity', keep in mind that most Americans travel more than 20 miles to work and don't have access to public transportation.

No, the point is that Europe has reacted to higher costs by reducing consumption.You're more wrong than right to point out that Europe hasn't responded by producing a very specific solution at your command.

Europe is not a command economy, in respect to energy it may even be a LESS socialistic economy - which opens a very interesting discussion.

If you place the US - with its Universal Gasoline Plan and largely private pay-as-you-go Health care system, next to Europe with its Universal Health Care and pay-at-

You know you're a hopeless academic when you think a book can save your life in the face of a severe famine. No, my friend, a book can not tell you how to survive and live off the land. This is something you must learn in person.

I'm not surprised that biofuels actually make the situation worse. I've been saying that all along; our nation's approach to biofuels (particularly using corn) was a poorly thought out political move to cater to the corporate farm lobby. It was really convenient in that it allowed politicians to act "green" and look like they were moving away from supporting big bad Middle East oil (which is in large part financed by American companies under American-supported governments... that's a discussion for another day). Maybe this report will finally start convincing people that biofuels really, really aren't a proper solution to environmental problems. The only way to REALLY hit the root of the problem is to reduce consumption of stuff. I'm not going to pretend that's easy or even practical, but this talk about biofuels, alternative energy, etc. is just pussy-footing around the real issue that we as a species are consuming more than this planet can support.

It's also important to note that the VAST majority of our petroleum imports don't actually come from the Middle East! The DOE says so [doe.gov] itself. Our top two petroleum importing countries are... Canada and Mexico!

Biofuels were never about being a real solution. It was always about political capital for politicians and special interests. Now we at least have more science to show how messed up biofuels really are.

It was really convenient in that it allowed politicians to act "green" and look like they were moving away from supporting big bad Middle East oil (which is in large part financed by American companies under American-supported governments... that's a discussion for another day).

POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Solar technology is about as good as it gets at this point and there are some really exciting developments coming out of it. Wind and sea-based power sources are all promising as well. But the problem with all these solutions is that they are treating the symptoms of overconsumption by reducing the impact of that behavior, rather than reducing overconsumption in its own right.

I think the fundamental question is that if we were to find the hypothetical perfect clean, cheap, local, and renewable source of energy, would we be able to stop worrying about our energy consumption? I frankly have no idea and I think there is a lot of room for debate there. However, I'm becoming increasing convinced that even if our energy source was perfect, our species would still run into numerous other choke points, such as raw material shortages, food shortages, and so forth, not to mention the fact that many energy-consumption-facilitated activities can be seriously harmful to our health: driving (accidents), tv (sedentary lifestyle), etc. Plus, diminishing returns says it's going to be harder and more expensive to use technological means to reduce our energy consumption in the future.

When I look at it that way it makes a whole lot more sense from a practical point of view to modify my behavior to simply use less energy. I could spend a few hundred bucks on a super-efficient water heater, or I could take shorter showers. I could invest in a fuel efficient car, or I could just drive less. I'm constantly amazed at how much energy I can save just by completely turning off my devices. Doing this is cheaper and easier than upgrading to newer technology, and fights the root of the problem of overconsumption. It's even better if I can do both.

"Overconsumption" is akin to "overspending". If you have an income of $2000 and $100K in the bank, and you're spending $10000 a month, you're overspending. You can get away with it until your "banked" resources run out, at which case you will be spending only $2000 a month. The only question at that point is whether you've prepared your finances for that sudden change, or whether things will crash and burn (i.e., your home and car get reposessed, you have to pay exhorbitant cancellation costs for cell phone contracts, &c).

If your income is from your capital (i.e., if your income is dividends from stocks, &c), you have an even worse problem: that the more of your savings you spend, the less income you have. If you keep spending at your "overspending" rate, you'll eventually have no capital at all. Moderation early on may mean a sustainable income of $2000, but the longer you wait to adjust to your sustainable income, the lower your sustinable income will be when you finally get your head on straight.

Oil, coal, copper, steel, and other non-renewable resources are like money in the bank. Right now our energy consumption, as a society, is several times what our "income" is from renewable energy sources. We're running on our "bank" of oil, coal, &c. What happens when the oil & coal run out, if we don't find a renewable energy source that can provide us energy at the rates we're used to? "The market will adjust", certainly, but it's likely that it will "adjust" by massive wars, anarchy, starvation, and societal collapse. (See "Collapse", by Jared Diamond for a history of many such past societies that have had exactly that happen.)

Renewable resources like ocean fish, trees, and soil are like the stock market. If fishing and logging happen at replacement rate, then you have a sustainable renewable resource indefinitely. But if you fish or log at more than replacement rates, then your stock of reproducing fish or trees goes down, meaning a lower rate of the sustainable resource, until the resource is finally exhausted and cannot be renewed.

With these kind of fixed resources, "overconsumption" definitely has a well-defined meaning that has nothing to do with "externalities".

No offense, but most people don't understand economics. So I don't see how having a lot of people agree with you is relevant.

First, because the externalized damages at issue are the result of... guess what... overconsumption of resources. Saying that overconsumption doesn't exist is like saying that chickens don't exist, only eggs.

Bad analogy. "Overconsumption" is a conveniently vague term. It could be a chicken, could be an egg. How much consumption is too much consumption? Who gets to decide? The point is that the current markets already allocate scarce resources in a sensible manner. In a market without externalities, we don't need to care if someone consumes more because they automatically have paid for the cost of the additional consumption. It doesn't even make sense to speak of "overconsumption". There's no rational criteria for deciding a certain level of consumption is too much.

Second, if there really isn't enough to go around, then the "correct cost" is starving to death. At that point, civilized society breaks down, and you can forget about whatever regulatory mechanism you're using to internalize the externalities.

What do you mean "enough to go around"? That's the key problem here with your claims. Humanity has plenty of room for feeding itself. So "starving to death" isn't an issue. As I see it, if things did get that close, then there will be mass starvation due to the inefficient societies of the world that are already starving many of their citizens.

I have to agree with you about overconsumption. However, I have learned that the word overconsumption is not well received by a large number of people (see one of your replies). It has the implication that people are doing something morally wrong. It's possible that you meant this, but reading your post, I doubt it.

Instead of talking about how we over consume, I try to explain that life can be as good (or even better) if we use less. There's a sweet spot somewhere on the consumption curve where our life enjoyment is maximized. This is kind of a strange concept for a lot of people. If some is good, more is obviously better. But it's like eating candy. Eating a little bit of candy can really improve your day. Eating a lot of candy just makes you feel sick.

I have made a lot of changes to my life that were a win-win situation. I started taking the bus instead of driving. Now instead of madly trying to rush around and get a million things done (stressing me out), I read a book. I intentionally say to myself, "I'm going to relax today. I'm not going to go shopping on the way home to pick up that one last thing. I'm not going to pick up the dry cleaning. Because I can't. I'm taking the bus today and reading my book." It turned out that virtually all of the things I did with the car were unimportant to me. In the very rare case where I absolutely need a car, I get a taxi. Doing this has improved my life, improved my finances and improved the environment (or at least not degraded it as much).

Not every change is good for every person (some people really can't deal with mass transit for instance). But I think it's good to encourage people to find areas in their life where less is more. As more and more people do this, our society will change. It will become easier and easier to reduce and win. For instance, in many cities bicycle paths are becoming a useful part of the infrastructure. In the town I'm living in now I can do all my shopping on my bike, without having to compete with cars. And on a nice day one of my most hated jobs (shopping) has become an extremely pleasant activity. 20 years ago, this town had *no* bicycle paths and it would be extremely difficult/dangerous to go shopping on your bike.

I think the very best thing to do to get people thinking is simply to try stuff yourself. Experiment. Have fun. Find out what you *really* need and what you don't (TV is always a good option to do without;-) ). When you find something that makes your life better, invite your family and friends to try it with you (go shopping together by bike, go to a movie together on the bus, invite people over to your cold house with a cosy fire in the wood stove drinking hot chocolate, etc, etc.)

I know you're joking, but in all honesty I've tried being rich and I've tried being poor. Poor is actually better IMHO. Well, I lie. Because "poor" in the Western view isn't really all that poor. Right now I'm living on about $1250 a month US, which is $15000 a year. That's probably near the poverty line around here (Japan). But I've got a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear. I've got a laptop computer and an internet connection (luxury!). So, it's hardly what real poor people would call "poor" -- I'm not starving or freezing or whatever.

And if I compare my life at $15000 a year to my life at $100000+ a year, I'll take less any day. As long as you aren't in debt, or hungry, or freezing to death, having not very much money is totally fine. And it forces you to try things that you might not otherwise try. Sure, you *could* do it with extra money, but the fact that you can pay someone else to cook your food or clean your house or whatever means that you probably will. And I've found that life is infinitely more interesting if you live it rather than pay someone else to live it.

I'm not explaining this very well. But it was quite a surprise to me to learn that I was happier with less. Now I'm trying to reduce even more. $15K per year still seems pretty fat to me. What else can I learn by cutting back more?

Well of course at the beginning we will still need oil....we can't turn it off with the flick of a switch all at once...

But, if we hit the problem with multiple alternative fuel methods....we can do it. We can at least get down to levels of oil we in the US produce ourselves. We have a great deal of natural gas, we have lots of coal, and if we went more nuke, especially with breeder reactors, raise oil producing algae, etc....we'd start on the path towards energy self-sufficiency, and rid ourselves of that middle east monkey on our backs.

there are a lot of factors involved, but actually in brazil they don't use close to 1 gallon of oil to produce 3 gallons of ethanol. for one thing, brazil has a large manual labor workforce. low paying, that means, brazil can hire on hands to plant, and harvest the cane. the only fuel used is the transport machinery.

furthermore, the cane is burned to produce the ethanol, as well as electricity, the electricity created helps cover the cost of fuel to transport the cane, and ethanol around.

but there is still tragically a huge negative, the burning of cane has caused a huge increase of smog in brazil, you see when you burn the cane a lot of small particulate gets into the air. that's why in the us, they burn natural gas to make bio-ethanol, instead of the stalk and husk.

Disclaimer: I'm Brazilian.Manual labor is common on northeastern plantations, where most of production goes to sugar making. On the São Paulo state (the "modern" Brazil), especially Ribeirão Preto county, you're going to find modern agricultural practices.

The smog from cane plantations is not from the ethanol making processes. It's from older sugar cane regions, ie. northeastern Brazil or NW Rio de Janeiro, where the can is burn before being harvested. This is, yes, a *big* producer of particulat

Yes trees do make it rain much more than grass crops like sugar cane or corn.

The evapotranspiration of any vegetation is proportional to the leaf area. Forests have vastly more leaf area than croplands.So the atmosphere over forests, rain forests, contains much more moisture, therefor it rains more.

First off, the concerns raised by the original article only apply to some biofuels, not all. The corcerns only apply to some biofuel crops and to some farming practices.Secondly, the original article had a 'might' in it and was of the form "Biofuels might make greenhouse gases worse". Deleting 'might' combletely changes the meaning and esculates the threat.Slashdot editors are getting to be like regular journalists ((hint: this is not a compliment) and looking for a new inflammatory headline where they can. Junk journalism!

Blame the environmentalists too. They're even worse than politicians when it comes to misunderstanding science. Their ideology causes them to discount any evidence contrary to their preconceived view of how the world should work. They're backtracking and spinning now, but a few years ago they were all gung-ho about biofuel farming.

The problem with liquid biofuels (what the article is alluding to) is not so much the actual production of the fuel itself since that is dependent on the Sun and the quality of the soil or media that is used grow the product, it is the overall energy equation from the actual production to delivery verses the energy that the fuel produces and if you look at ethanol which the Article covers, the cost to produce and deliver in some countries is more than wha

Come on guys. The politicians love the entire biofuel train and will disregard the negative consequences for as long as possible. The entire thing was so quickly accepted NOT because it will reduce emissions, but because it is a way to pump agricultural subsidies without actually saying you do.Agri subsidies have been a major problem between Europe+US vs. rest of the world. Due to subsidies, it is cheaper for people in Nigeria to actually buy corn and wheat from US/Europe than to actually grow it themselves

If you read through the article they make almost no mention of BIO-DIESEL which is significantly different in it's manufacturing methods and land use. This article is largely focused on the failures of Ethanol being a suitable fuel.

Bio-Diesel can be grown from a variety of plants ranging from palm trees (Southern), Soy Beans (Norther) and Algae (non-land use) which gives you a extremely wide range of climates available for the production of Bio-Diesel and a variety of farm land as well. This doesn't even

The vast majority of the billions of animals grown for food out there are NOT fed by allowing them to freely graze "in forests and other areas". Most of them live out their lives in intensive factory farming operations. They are mostly fed vegetable and grain based diets, designed to make them grow quickly. So if you were to eat only meat, you would not avoid the need to grow vegetables. In fact, to grow a pound of beef in north america, it takes at least 2.6 pounds of grain (if you take the numbers from the beef industry at face value). And all this grain is not grown anywhere near the feed lots, either. It is shipped to the cows from all over the world, again requiring large amounts of fossil fuels. And I haven't even mentioned the methane that is produced by cattle in enormous quantities, or the methane produced by their manure. And this is just for cattle. You also need to factor in the billions more pigs, chickens, etc.

Your only valid point is that too much of the vegetables we buy comes from too far away, and that is why it is not only important to eat less meat (note I didn't say NO meat), but it is also important to purchase as much seasonal, local produce as possible. One criticism you missed, however, is the popularity of heavily processed meat substitutes (eg: "Tofurkey"). They probably consume far more energy per pound than most meats.

So if you were to eat only meat, you would not avoid the need to grow vegetables. In fact, to grow a pound of beef in north america, it takes at least 2.6 pounds of grain.

Not so fast, Mr. Smarty Pants. You've left out a crucial factor in your calculations.

A person consuming mainly factory-farmed beef, thanks to the massive cholesterol, hormone, and antibiotic intake, will die years, maybe decades earlier than the vegetarian. As their arteries clog up, they'll become sedentary, further reducing their energy

You could be right, although it is just as likely that the scientists just dont want to be known, not because the information may be false or inaccurate, but because of the public lashing they may recieve.

How so? This topic has always been the subject of dispassionate, even-handed debate, and characterized by respectful, collegial differences of opinion.
Truly a wonderful community.
Oh we're not talking about Venezuelan Beaver Cheese Production in the pre-Spanish Years? Sorry.

"Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."

Huh? Why would you grow switchgrass on corn lands? The whole point of switchgrass it that you can grow it on marginal lands, freeing croplands for food production. On crop lands, cellulosic ethanol is to be made from corn stover and the like.

Here's [autobloggreen.com] an interesting analysis of the studies from a member of the UC Davis faculty. He strongly disagrees with the methodology used.

Well, either way, I think we can all agree that corn ethanol from the corn itself is lousy, cellulosic ethanol from waste streams is good, and everything else is up in the air.

Here is one reference [nih.gov]. Original references are usually much less alarmist than the stupid news stories created by journalists who don't understand what they are reporting. This is corn ethanol, which is known to be an inefficient source of energy, so the Science article comes as no great surprise--though it does contradict an earlier report [nih.gov] in PNAS. The journalism mistakenly groups all biofuels with corn here (unless the article irresponsibly leaves out other references). Independent studies would need to be done for every biofuel source to warrant the sweeping generalizations of the Seattle Times article.

The key discussion is the current primary biodiesel production is on crop land. They're right. We're going to be needing all our crop land to grow food to feed a rapidly growing population.

Biodiesel production from high oil content algaes doesn't need to use crop land. From a University of New Hampshire study...

"...NREL's research focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow saltwater pools for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up in bonds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high evaporation rates. There are solutions to these problems, but for the purpose of this paper, we will focus instead on the potential such ponds can promise, ignoring for the moment the methods of addressing the solvable challenges remaining when the Aquatic Species Program at NREL ended.

NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres), if the remaining challenges are solved (as they will be, with several research groups and companies working towards it, including ours at UNH). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.

The algae farms would not all need to be built in the same location, of course (and should not for a variety of reasons). The case mentioned above of building it all in the Sonora desert is purely a hypothetical example to illustrate the amount of land required. It would be preferable to spread the algae production around the country, to lessen the cost and energy used in transporting the feedstocks. Algae farms could also be constructed to use waste streams (either human waste or animal waste from animal farms) as a food source, which would provide a beautiful way of spreading algae production around the country. Nutrients can also be extracted from the algae for the production of a fertilizer high in nitrogen and phosphorous. By using waste streams (agricultural, farm animal waste, and human sewage) as the nutrient source, these farms essentially also provide a means of recycling nutrients from fertilizer to food to waste and back to fertilizer. Extracting the nutrients from algae provides a far safer and cleaner method of doing this than spreading manure or wastewater treatment plant "bio-solids" on farmland.

These projected yields of course depend on a variety of factors, sunlight levels in particular. The yield in North Dakota, for example, wouldn't be as good as the yield in California. Spreading the algae production around the country would result in more land being required than the projected 9.5 million acres, but the benefits from distributed production would outweigh the larger land requirement. Further, these yield estimates are based on what is theoretically achievable - roughly 15,000 gallons per acre-year. It's important to point out that the DOE's ASP that projected that such yields are possible, was never able to come close to achieving such yields. Thei

While I've always thought that using cropland to produce biofuels is unethical and ineffective. On the other hand, small scale production can make a huge amount of sense.

For example, the biodiesel I run in my Jetta is made locally at a rendering plant out of waste fats. So, not only am I being a little more carbon neutral compared to buying fossil fuels that have been transported long distances, I'm also keeping what would otherwise be wastes from going into the landfill.

Agreed. I use waste cooking oil (processed into biodiesel) in a garage heater (that will burn kerosene, diesel, etc) as well as in a fairly large diesel generator. I would never want to use biodiesel made from farmland, but waste cooking oil is a different story.

Yes, but you are using waste cooking oil from a source much larger than your personal household. So your source is a fluke that will never scale to a large population. And in fact, as soon as it scales up at all (as soon as more than a few people start doing what you are doing) there will be competition for the waste cooking oil you use. I assume you are collecting it from restaurants or somebody else is doing so for you. As soon as ten times as many people in your locality want that cooking oil, it will start costing you instead of being 'waste' that you get for free.

So your fuel source is not viable for the future, and in fact you should keep quiet about it if you want it to continue to be a viable source for yourself personally.

Some people have the idea in their heads that if we have excess cropland to be used on biofuel, we could be using it to produce food that we could then send to developing nations that are having trouble feeding their people (Ethiopia comes to mind), or that could be distributed amongst the poor in this country. They might even think that artificially limiting the food supply by designating certain crop fields as being for biofuels will artificially inflate the price of food, thus making it even harder on t

"Some people have the idea in their heads that if we have excess cropland to be used on biofuel, we could be using it to produce food that we could then send to developing nations that are having trouble feeding their people (Ethiopia comes to mind), or that could be distributed amongst the poor in this country."

I don't get that then..at least in the US, we actually PAY farmers subsidies $$$ to not farm parts of their land..etc. We give freakin' subsidies to corn farmers....so, it isn't like we don't have a ton of potential farmland out there we could use in addition to the excess of crops we already produce. In the US at least, there isn't anything remotely looking like a food shortage, I think we could easily work on raising bio-crops without depriving anyone. If we went more towards ethanol from wastes products....algae farms....hell, even things like sugar beets, we could be more efficient than with corn, and take the pressure off that crop for raising food prices.

If we removed the subsidies right now, that would relieve the pressure we're starting to feel a little bit of already in the US. Do that and lower tariffs on imported cane sugar, and we could easily start making cheaper, more efficient fuels (not to mention maybe we could get cane sugar in real coke again and other foods rather than fattening ourselves with HFCS.

But really, c'mon...we already have more than enough food raised as surplus, even with subsidies....so, it isn't like we'd be depriving someone of a meal.

so, either we kill ourselves by burning coal and oil, or we kill ourselves chopping forests.

you know what ? fuckit!!!

if we're so stupid we can't find a stable balance to ensure the survival of the specie, so be it. let mass extinction come. and in 60 million years from now, some form of land dweling squid will be unearthing our bones, just like we do with the dinosaurs.

Clean energy was killed by the very environmentalists who tout it. I was talking to an engineer recently who worked on nuclear power plants, and he told me about a plant somewhere (can't remember the name) that planned to build 6 cores. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the cost went up exponentially every time they finished a core because of the paperwork and regulations. The first core cost millions; the last would have cost hundreds of billions. They had to quit building at three cores, but if the legislatures hadn't messed it all up, that state would be a power-exporting state today.

Out here in Idaho, there are remnants of curiosities such as a regenerative reactor that worked once upon a time. (There's also a nuclear jet engine that didn't.) These reactors produce more energy for for the same amount of fuel and have less waste. But we can't use them, because (horrors!) they produce weapons-grade waste. I have a very simple solution to this dilemma: put it in a weapon.

Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people. And it's not like there's shortage of uranium. There's a deposit under my house for goodness sake!

If we could build more reactors at the real cost of building them, drill the oil in Alaska and give the tree-huggers desk jobs like everyone else, we'd be so much better off.

-Super-cheap electricity would mean less dependence on foreign oil.-We have more oil here than in Saudi Arabia, so we could quit importing oil altogether.-We could have electric cars.-Less coal and oil burning would make the environmentalists happy and stop global warming (or global cooling, whatever it is this year).-Breeder reactors would produce little waste, and what little they do produce could make more nukes (best defense is a good offense; see "Cold War" on p. 187)

The only way that nuclear power production can be considered cheap is if you leave out the costs of building the reactors AND the cost of decommissioning the reactors after the facilities eventually they lose their licenses and have to be decommissioned. The cost of decommisioning nuclear reactors is ALWAYS left out of the equation by nuclear power advocates. ALWAYS.Including the multi-billion dollar cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors makes burning US currency to generate power look like a better idea

Now the environmentalists want to blow up the dams that supply almost all of the state! I mean, you can't get much greener than a dam. But I guess fish are more important than people.

A significant portion of the humans on this planet survive almost entirely on fish. A damn might give your state a slightly higher amount of clean electricity, while it causes 1 billion people around the planet to starve.

Yes, corn ethanol has a very low yield and has no business being used for fuel - this is very well known. As the article states, "Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel." which is entirely unsurprising to anyone who's looked at this stuff before. Corn is only popular in the US, and only because it's subsidized.

How about a discussion on SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) from crops like Chinese Tallow, and the newer algae production processed instead.

Yes, corn ethanol has a very low yield and has no business being used for fuel - this is very well known. As the article states, "Searchinger said the only possible exception he could see for now was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel." which is entirely unsurprising to anyone who's looked at this stuff before. Corn is only popular in the US, and only because it's subsidized.

How about a discussion on SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) from crops like Chinese Tallow, and the newer algae production processed instead.

Maybe because corn is used for ethanol in the United States, and it's a bigger more subsidized business than ever, and it's still clamoring for more money, and there are still assorted groups pushing for more of it used as fuel?

The point of studying the alternate methods of ethanol production is that they might actually be energy positive. It's not a bad idea to try and grow our oil, but it requies a process that works and can fill our demands without making food massively expensive.

So many farmers have started growing corn for ethanol that other crops are skyrocketing in price. Wild bird seed has nearly doubled in price in the past year, and hops and grains used for beer production have also gone way up in price. Hop production will take a while to get back as it takes several years for a hop rhizome to develop a fully productive plant.

On the contrary,Anyone who didn't see this coming hasn't been very acute.1. Corn Farmers in Red States suddenly get "Green" and ask for "Subsidies". Where have I heard that before.2. There isn't enough water in the world for people to drink, but suddenly there's enough to grow fuel for Hummers?

This is an example of government picking winners. "Farmers" get extra votes in Washington (electoral college thing), so as soon as "Farmers" could benefit from a scientific theory, the theory get tested in the politic

The reason "high-fructose corn syrup" is used is because sugar cane is more difficult to grow.

No, the reason HFCS is in everything in the US is because our high sugar tariffs make the domestic sugar price double the global price. If it weren't for the tariff, we'd import cheap sugar from our friendly neighbors down south, and US Coke wouldn't taste so lousy.

This has been mentioned in issues of Scientific American and National Geographic before. Personally I believe we need better power transmission technologies so that we can tap into various solar and wind sources and transport the energy where needed.

But even realizing local benefits of such power generation seems far fetched in todays current political climate. Here in Idaho we have much unrealized potential for wind energy. However the person in charge of our "Office of Energy Resources", Paul Kjellander.

Brazil rivals the U.S. in ethanol production because sugarcane yields 600 to 800 gallons an acre, twice as much as corn.

But there are also issues in the use of cheap labor, destroyed farmland/forests, and the use of petroleum based fertilizers. So even with the increase of of usable energy per acre in Brazil, that probably wouldn't translate to the U.S., as we have little things like a minimum wage and people who bitch loudly when vast amounts of land are razed for crop production. So either way you cut it, Biofuels are at best only a means of transition from a pure oil based energy network unto something more long term feasible.

Maybe I have a skewed perspective, but in New England 'most' biofuel is firewood. I've been heating my house with it for a couple years and have plenty of trees to burn. But even when I buy a cord from the woodsman a couple miles away the amount of fossil fuel used to generate a cord of wood is probably about five gallons of petrol. I heat the house on two cords a year, and the same heating can be achieved with 1200 gallons of propane. It's not even close.There is some additional point pollution but I run a catalytic stove from Woodstock Soapstone which reburns the smoke so you can barely smell the woodsmoke outside (and I own enough forestland to eat my share of pollution). Besides that most of that 'pollution' was sequestered from the environment within the past thirty years.If they want to argue against most fermentation-based biofuels, fine, but most cultures burn wood and have before 1830 when the planet started heating up.

That is biomass rather than biofuel. The issue in the US is that taking up cropland here means plowing up marginal land elsewhere. This disturbs soils which hold carbon and thus that carbon is released. With your firewood, this is not the case. The soil is not disturbed and your use of the wood is not causing others to be hungry. You should mention the benefits of excercise in splitting and hauling wood as well.

Like many other solutions, the difference is scale. On a small scale, wood-burning has a relatively small carbon footprint. On a large scale, you end up with deforestation and much more carbon entering the atmosphere than can be sequestered in the same amount of time, in addition to less biomass available for said sequestration.

Besides the problem of fertilizer production, irrigation, machines burning diesel fuel, the biofuel craze is increasing pressures on farm land, promoting deforestation, and contributing to global food price rises. But that doesn't mean we won't eventually get a biofuel that has more energy in it than we put into it. Once we reach this point, then the biofuel itself can fuel its production. But in the mean time there are some other intriguing alternatives.

Just today I was listening to CBC's "Quirks and Quarks" talking to Sandia labs about using solar energy to convert CO2 and H2O into H2 and CO, which can be effectively combined to make hydrocarbons. Unlike bacteria or algae, this process uses a special solid substance that, when exposed to the intense light, has its oxygen molecules stripped off, releasing O2 into the atmosphere. Then this substance is taken out of the sunlight, exposed to CO2 and Water, and it rips the oxygen molecules out of those substances, leaving H2 and CO behind, both of which can be fairly economically combined into hydrocarbons like methanol and gasoline. What's intriguing is that the substance they are using to rip the oxygen out of the water and CO2 can do this over and over again. Right now they are using CO2 from sources other than the atmosphere, making this not carbon neutral. However they plan to work towards harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere. In the meantime, though, this is a great way of increasing the efficiency of energy extraction from, say coal. If, someday, we could capture all CO2 from coal plants and convert it to gasoline for use in autos, that would have an overall decrease in our CO2 emissions because the coal could now be used to generate electricity *and* drive cars, reducing the CO2 emissions from refined gasoline. Assuming we can control particulates, nitrous oxides, and sulfur dioxides from burning gasoline, in the future perhaps gasoline-burning cars will be the cleanest things on the planet! Certainly as the scientist pointed out, gasoline (hydrocarbons anyway) is the best way of storying energy. Generating electricity is nice, but we have to use it as we generate it. Batteries and H2 production aren't really that good at storing energy as densely. The radio program is http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/feb09.html [www.cbc.ca] and the Sandia press release is http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/sunshine.html [sandia.gov]

If we are wise, then I think the push to biodiesel or solar gasoline will ultimately be our ticket.

that biofuels actually increased carbon emissions. Namely because of the emissions costs of processing all the fuel. Now, something like the waste cooking oil I could see being useful, but the corn lobby will make sure that method is not widespread.

How I love politics. Politics getting in the way of reason, in the way of human survival. Nothing new. Or, in the Slashdot lore, "Nothing to see here, move along."

Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to lowcarbon
fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential lowcarbon
energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon
savings depends on how they are produced. Converting
rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce
food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the
United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing
17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas
(GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing
fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass
or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands
planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and
offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

While this work is very useful, the immediate concern would seem to be that grain carryover stocks [earth-policy.org] are becoming quite low as a result of ethanol production. They are now at about 54 days worth of world consumption [earth-policy.org] compared to over 100 days in 2000. Much lower stocks would mean making a choice between starvation of people or reducing feedlot operations and meat availability.

"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gases substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University.

Note that this lead author is quoted as stating "probably increase". I am taking note of this apparently overlooked qualification. I've yet to read the actual Science paper yet. Until I read the primary source, I'll take this n

...that basically starts with a pre-conceived conclusion and looks for evidence to back it up, I suspect.

The problem is that the net emissions from biofuel production cannot ever be determined accurately---it is totally impossible ot absolutely quanitfy it because it is always a moving target.

The article goes on about rainforest being clear-cut to make way for the production of fuel plants. That kind of land makes really poor land for growing and there is no evidence at all that shows biofuel production has been cited as a reason for clearing a significant amount of new land. The "biofuel lobbyists" are right about one thing; the study is too simplistic to be an accruate assesment of the real net impact of biofuel production. What if the farm equipment itself was powered by biofuels? What if the waste biomass from preparing farmland and growing the crops was recovered and used for power generation? What if we used biomass from the ocean (this is already done on an experimental scale)? Have there been studies on the efficiency of biofuel-powered engines and on the overall emissions (sulphur, particulates and things that not only afect the climate but actually harm our health)? What about the impact of making fuel out of tarsands vs middle-east light sweet crude vs. crude drilled in the Gulf of Mexico? How can they put a number like "92 years of emissions"? It all smells pretty fishy to me.

It's like the argument that biofuels threaten foodstocks. Well, we used Soybeans extensively for food products...and it makes a good biofuel...and plastic...and industrial lubricants...and a host of other things. What is wrong with doing that using corn too? Corn production in the US actually exceeds what the world NEEDS for food by quite a margin, as do the production of many other crops (wheat, etc). These crops have been very cheap since the depression (in fact for decades they went down significantly when adjusted for inflation) and only in the last few years have grain prices been coming up to where they really should be. Sometimes I wonder if there are lobbyists out there for the processed food undustry putting resistance out to any competing demand in order to ensure they can name their own bargain prices for high-fructose corn syrup, bleached and enriched white wheat flour and hydrogenated vegetable oil and keep the margins on twinkie sales up.

Anyways, what is the big surprise here? Burning fuel creates emissions...surprise surprise! When you drive an electric car you are indirectly burning natural gas, or coal, or splitting uranium atoms. When you are using biodiesel you are burning soybeans or canola, along with whatever the equipment used to grow it uses. Same with ethanol except it's corn or switchgrass or sugarcane. Hello...if you want to reduce emmissions DON'T DRIVE SO DAMN MUCH! Get rid of your suburbans and buy a hatchback (a VW Golf diesel is better than a Prius if you don't live in a big city). Better yet, get off your ass and WALK once in a while.

Actually having worked in power plants and refineries and such...I have a hard time believing ANY sort of fuel doesn't have a significant environmental impact. These guys obviously haven't seen how tarsands ar mined, or how much fuel an oil tanker uses, or how much power an offshore drilling platform uses.

The problem is most of the plants build up till this time haven't taken transportation into account. Many were build by co-ops (though many have been bought up by very large petrochemical companies) out in the middle of nowhere. So everything gets trucked in and out. It's very inefficient. So yes, old plants bad.On the other hand, many of the larger biofuel plants on the drawing board have been placed on train lines. Which is crazy fuel efficient compared to trucks. Even more efficient is building out

coal is the greenest fuel because it requires the least processing. The point is corn sucks as a fuel source and sugar cane requires vast amounts of land and fertilizer. Biofuels will never replace oil. Here's a big shocker, so what? We've never run our houses on one source of electricity so why should we expect to run our cars that way? Biofuels are a great way to offset oil use until something like electrics can take over. Just a reminder hydrogen isn't a fuel source it's a storage medium and it has a rea

There are a few thing to consider before dismissing biofuels entirely.

First, this study states that the break even point is 93 years. That's a reasonable timeframe when assessing anthropogenic global warming. Most of the time, the warming potential of gasses is measured using a 100 year potential. As a long term investment, biofuels still pay off.

Second, the study looks at corn as a fuel. Nobody except Iowans and pandering politicians think corn is a good biofuel. The technology for cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner. Biodiesel far more energy efficient than ethanol. Sugar is a far more viable alternative than corn, where it will grow.

Finally, it looks like the study considers only a monoculture. Multiple crops on the same area of land is more efficient. Of course, far too much of our agriculture is monoculture.

What the article and many others imply is there is no free lunch. Useful work comes at the cost of proportionately larger increases in entropy, and those increases are manifested often unpredictably.

About a year ago Science also had a long analysis examining the impact of various plants to create biofuels. It concluded, essentially, that corn was the worst while natural weeds and crop waste was the best. This initial analysis did not effect US policy which is based on year over year profit rather than long term costs. The overcapacity we currently see in ethanol facilities is not a result of good analysis or market forces, but by the subversion of those market forces by government regulations, such as subsidizing the oil companies, for instance through the reduction of oil taxes, and the subsidy of corn as a biofuel over more advantageous plants.

It is unlikely that greenhouse gasses are going to fall without a reduction of consumption. We are talking a higher fuel economy in all vehicles, and a large tax on those vehicles that do not meet those fuel efficiencies, as well as a loss of other tax benefits for such vehicles. We are talking large tax benefits for small businesses that meet rigorous emission standards. We are talking a reduction in consumption of product made in factories that have no concern for efficiency, and a willingness to pay more for products that are made in more environmentally friendly patterns.

The only reason that such an article seems controversial is that consumers want a free lunch. People were hoping that corn would be a panacea, like nuclear power, too cheap to meter, with no negative consequences. It is like how some people drive on the freeway. With no regard to Newton's laws of motion. I guess they believe they drive fast enough so to be out of the domain of where such laws are valid.

Last time I checked, fossil fuels needed those things too, and usually from longer distances than biofuels would need. Did they take that into account?

I also find it interesting how the article kept talking about how biofuels were responsible for rainforest destruction, when they need not be, and they weren't talking about the most efficient biofuel methods. Also, of course, biofuel techniques are far from perfected at the moment, so even if it really is worse right now, I don't think the technology's potential shouldn't underestimated.

I'm a huge advocate of studying and reducing carbon emissions, I even work for one of the IPCC lead authors. But biofuels have never sat well with me. Something about burning our food for fuel makes me nervous and for some reason I start thinging about Easter Island. And now it looks like subsidised corn ethanol is one of the factors jacking up beer prices [montanakaimin.com]. Thanks jerks.

Me too, but so far I've only had success getting the system to work on downhill journeys. Uphill journeys are still unsolved. I've heard other people have had success using flywheels to capture the energy from braking, but the only solution seems to be to make the hills higher on one side than the other.

Many non-top fuel racing engines are starting to use ethanol, partially due to the low cost (a gallon of nitromethane is pretty expensive) and ready availability (seen a nitro pump at the local gas station recently?). A gas engine can basically run a higher compression ratio and replace a few fuel fittings, and subsequently make more power on E85 than it could on gasoline. The growing commonality of turbocharging gives a pretty easy way to raise compression (or change the pulley on the supercharger alread